INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN THE NEWS
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1978.tb00273.x |
| Published date | 01 March 1978 |
| Date | 01 March 1978 |
REVIEW ARTICLE
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
IN
THE
NEWS
GILL
PALMER*
THERE
is a need for studies
of
the mass media’s handling
of
industrial relations news.
Research into the processes of news production could throw light on how the industrial
relations system links in with the rest of the social structure. The fashionable ‘systems
theory’ is much in need
of
work
on
such linkages, but
so
far industrial relations
academics have given the media only cursory attention.
Media sociologists have been left to investigate the field. Now that a body of their
work is building up it is worth assessing how it can be used to enrich industrial relations
studies.
I
concentrate here on reviewing the first extensive
empirical
studies
of
how the
U.K.’s national news media present industrial relations news.
The latest Royal Commission
on
the Press commissioned Professor McQuail to
conduct a content analysis of press stories in
1975.
The study included the analysis of
industrial relations news in the national dailies.’ This follows the publication of
Bad
News*
by the Glasgow University Media Group. They monitored all national television
news broadcasts and current affairs for three months in
1975,
concentrating on indus-
trial news. Further results are expected in a sequel volume.
Both surveys were primarily concerned to
describe
the main characteristics of media
reporting. They itemise and measure the frequency and prominence of issues picked up
as ‘newsworthy’. This done, both attempt to go beyond a count of issues covered, to
discover news angles
or,
in the Glasgow Group’s jargon, the ‘interpretative coding
frames’ used by journalists and broadcasters. Most of the resources of the two projects
have been spent on this description and analysis. They make little attempt to analyse the
causes
or
social effects
of
the news.
To
summarise the descriptions, what sort of news does the national media carry? Both
the McQuail and Glasgow studies discovered remarkably similar patterns.
An overwhelming priority is given to the reporting of strikes. McQuail found that 36
per cent of press items involving industrial relations, dealt with industrial action. The
Glasgow Group found 3940
per
cent
of
the time spent by television
on
industrial affairs
was reports of industrial stoppages (though only
20
per cent of the number of stories).
No other events at work come near this coverage. Joint meetings (the grease and oil
of
negotiation), consultation
or
participation machinery; legal
or
tripartite action; pro-
duction and job changes, all got relatively little attention. Accidents had to get to the size
of Flixborough before they were noticed. And background processes, such as changes in
policies, strategies
or
tactics were rarely mentioned.
What actors were shown on the industrial relations stage? One of the most unex-
pected findings was the absence
of
management in news reports. McQuail found only 14
per cent
of
the people quoted
or
mentioned in press items were managers
or
C.B.I.
officials. In contrast
41
per cent were union officials
or
shop stewards. These figures
must be treated with some care as McQuail does not record Employer Association
officials, employees are excluded because they were classified in with ‘members
of
the
general public’ and in addition the sample might have missed management-initiated
items, Nevertheless, the imbalance has been substantiated by other studies. The Glas-
gow
Group checked the interviews in television news and found thirty-three spokesmen
for management compared with fifty-eight for employees-virtually none
of
the man-
agers coming from factory
or
plant level. Paul Hartmann noted the same imbalance in an
earlier, smaller study
of
four newspapers, two television and one radio news programme
119
*
Lecturer
in
Industrial Sociology
and
Industrial Relations, the
City
University.
To continue reading
Request your trial